StingingVelvet wrote on Jan 6, 2011, 01:01:It just seems naive to say this will create some kind of single setup PC standard.

Yeah but intel could easily do it. Instead of putting worthless integrated graphics in, they could put something into integrated with the capability of say as powerful as the crap thats in consoles would work. Something with the capability of a $20 graphics card. It doesn't even have to be dx 10/11, it could be DX9.

Instead all the intel integrated stuff is worth less than a $20 cheap graphics card. My netbook has trouble even with casual games.

Verno wrote on Jan 6, 2011, 06:52:Reminds me of this old Creative graph which still manages to fucking hilarious to this day.

How have I never seen that before? That's comedy gold!

It's legit too, it's from a Creative marketing kit. I find it in my "LOL" pictures once in awhile and it's always good for a laugh. Also kind of sad how that company destroyed the addin sound market but oh well.

No, it isn't. The integrated GPU on sandy bridge is quite capable. It's not a hardcore gamer solution but it's good enough to play on low/medium settings on modern titles to get around 30fps or so (the 3000 variant). IMO, it's a big deal. But it's not hundreds of times faster than anything previously available (pinky to mouth).

Do you know how long it takes companies like Dell to adopt new hardware? The average consumer-grade PC won't have a Sandy Bridge processor in it STANDARD for at least a year. In a year, when every person with a new computer has this integrated GPU, they still won't be able to play anything for shit, because minimum requirements are constantly, steadily rising.

Sandy Bridge GPU is geared for one function, and that is video editing/playback.

AMD is working on a similar platform so eventually most consumer CPUs will hopefully contain a GPU on chip. I assume that's his logic anyhow. It ignores the fact that trickle down takes years, as evidenced by the Steam hardware surveys over the past few years.

Well, assume that every decent chip made by the middle of this year has a mostly-standardized on-board GPU.By 3 years max you can assume everyone either has it or doesn't have a CPU powerful enough to run modern games anyway.

In three years time, the integrated GPUs on these things will be beyond horribly outdated again already.

It makes no difference whether the integrated chipset is on the motherboard or on the CPU. It's never going to be a powerful enough GPU, because if it was, the price of the processor would skyrocket (Meaning nobody would buy it), and because it's integrated, it can never be updated.

I wish hardware manufacturers would realize that integration is NOT a fucking solution to anything.

AMD is working on a similar platform so eventually most consumer CPUs will hopefully contain a GPU on chip. I assume that's his logic anyhow. It ignores the fact that trickle down takes years, as evidenced by the Steam hardware surveys over the past few years.

Well, assume that every decent chip made by the middle of this year has a mostly-standardized on-board GPU.By 3 years max you can assume everyone either has it or doesn't have a CPU powerful enough to run modern games anyway.

Modern games will have a different definition going forward is the problem with your assumption. Particularly with the advent of new console hardware that is due in that period. In general though having any form of target is better than none to be sure. As usual, the problem with the PC is that it's a shifting target.

AMD is working on a similar platform so eventually most consumer CPUs will hopefully contain a GPU on chip. I assume that's his logic anyhow. It ignores the fact that trickle down takes years, as evidenced by the Steam hardware surveys over the past few years.

Well, assume that every decent chip made by the middle of this year has a mostly-standardized on-board GPU.By 3 years max you can assume everyone either has it or doesn't have a CPU powerful enough to run modern games anyway.

AMD is working on a similar platform so eventually most consumer CPUs will hopefully contain a GPU on chip. I assume that's his logic anyhow. It ignores the fact that trickle down takes years, as evidenced by the Steam hardware surveys over the past few years.

They're ridiculous. They blow away anything Intel already had in the >$200 range, which already blew away anything AMD had in the >$200 range.

As for the on-chip GPU, yes it's slow. But it's still much better than what's already on motherboards. As mentioned, it can play most modern games on low settings @ 30fps. Knowing that this is the absolute lowest you need to code for is a very nice thing.

PHJF wrote on Jan 6, 2011, 01:00:The integrated video on Sandy Bridge is no better than the integrated video everybody's motherboards already has. It's still beyond worthless to anyone even considering playing a modern video game.

Is that so?

No, it isn't. The integrated GPU on sandy bridge is quite capable. It's not a hardcore gamer solution but it's good enough to play on low/medium settings on modern titles to get around 30fps or so (the 3000 variant). IMO, it's a big deal. But it's not hundreds of times faster than anything previously available (pinky to mouth).

IMO, Intel should have made the gpu core bigger on the new Quad cores and then dropped a CPU core to make the chip more balanced for gaming. Or at least, offered that option.